Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 8: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:29, 2 June 2015

Revision as of 23:08, 20 June 2015

Line 1,584:

==FYI==

Hi all, just flagging [[Module_talk:Citation/CS1#Language_parameter|this conversation]] at Module talk:Citation/CS1. Best, --[[User:Elitre (WMF)|Elitre (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Elitre (WMF)|talk]]) 08:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

== {{para|Editor}} (capital "E") not flagged in {{tl|Cite book}}? ==

This capitalized {{para|Editor}} appears to work just fine. I believe that it should be flagged as unsupported.

*{{Cite compare|mode=book|year=2006|chapter=All the great shows|Editor=James Wilson|title=Book about super trains|publisher=On the Line Inc.|place=Seattle}}

<s>I haven't looked at the code yet to see why this capitalized parameter is accepted, but I will do so if I have time.</s> – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 22:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

:It's on the [[Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist|Whitelist]]. That's odd. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 22:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

::It's also been in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox&oldid=568150012 main module] for years; I've just never noticed. It looks like we also allow {{para|Author}} and {{para|Ref}} and {{para|DoiBroken}}, with all other parameters, except for initialisms, in lower case only. I think we should deprecate the capitalized form of all of these parameters. Are they in our documentation anywhere? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 22:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

:::The supported alternative capitalizations were each part of one or more of the pre-Lua templates and hence were pulled in to maintain backward compatibility. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 22:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

::::That makes sense. It's been two years since then, however, and I think it's time to bid them farewell. Maybe a maintenance category to ease into this transition? I have a nice AutoEd script that I use to clean up unsupported parameters (usually capitalization and misspelling errors), and it would work just fine on such a category. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 22:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

:::::<code>insource:/\| *Author *=/</code> 25 instances

:::::<code>insource:/\| *Editor *=/</code> 332 instances; {{para|Editor}} is used by {{tlx|Infobox television episode}}

:::::<code>insource:/\| *Ref *=/</code> 47 instances; {{para|Ref}} is accepted by the {{tlx|harv}} family of templates

:::::<code>insource:/\| *DoiBroken *=/</code> none found

:::::<code>insource:/\| *EditorGiven *=/</code> none found

:::::<code>insource:/\| *EditorSurname *=/</code> 2 instances

:::::<code>insource:/\| *Embargo *=/</code> none found; we might want to think about removing {{para|embargo}} in the cases where the embargo has expired

:::::<code>insource:/\| *PPrefix *=/</code> none found

:::::<code>insource:/\| *PPPrefix *=/</code> none found

:::::Presumably there are numbered versions: {{para|Author''n''}}, {{para|Editor''n''}} and perhaps {{para|EditorGiven''n''}} and {{para|EditorSurname''n''}}.

:::::Given these low numbers, I don't have a problem deprecating the author and editor parameters and killing the others.

:::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

::::::I believe that I have fixed all of the instances of the above parameters that needed to be fixed, i.e. they were in citation templates and were populated with a value. It has been my experience that the insource search doesn't always find everything, so there may be a few more that crop up in the deprecated parameter category. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 19:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

These are now deprecated:

:{{para|Author}}

:{{para|Author#}}

:{{para|Editor}}

:{{para|Editor#}}

:{{para|EditorGiven}}

:{{para|EditorGiven#}}

:{{para|EditorSurname}}

:{{para|EditorSurname#}}

and these are invalidated:

:{{para|DoiBroken}}

:{{para|Embargo}}

:{{para|PPPrefix}}

For PMCs with {{para|embargo}} that have expired, a new maintenance category:

{{cite compare |old=no |mode=journal |title=Title |journal=Journal |pmc=12345 |embargo={{date|today}} |comment=embargo expired today}}

{{cite compare |old=no |mode=journal |title=Title |journal=Journal |pmc=12345 |embargo={{date|tomorrow}} |comment=embargo expired today}}

—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears that {{para|Ref}} is still a valid parameter name. Is there a reason to keep it? I can think of none. It's probably still valid merely because of mistake on my part.

—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

:This capitalized parameter should be changed to deprecated or unsupported, per the discussion above. It looks like we all missed removing it in the last round, even though it was discussed above.

:Would you be willing to create a Monkbot task (or would {{U|GoingBatty}} be willing to create a BattyBot task) to scan the deprecated parameters category for these capitalized parameters and change them to lower-case? The category is so overwhelmed with {{para|coauthors}} that it is hard for a human editor to find {{para|month}} and {{U|Ref}} and other rare deprecated parameters in there. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

::I have an AWB script that works on these plus others listed in the table at [[Help:CS1_errors#Cite_uses_deprecated_parameters]]. I have just added {{para|Ref}} to it.

::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

== |vauthors= ==

{{anchor|vauthors}}

The topic of {{para|vauthors}} support periodically pops up. It has done so again at [[Module talk:Citation/CS1#Author parsing]] and at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Medical FA maintenance]]. {{para|vauthors}} is a parameter that is used in {{tlx|vcite2 journal}} to hold a strictly formatted [[Vancouver system]]-style author name list. {{tld|vcite2 journal}} invokes [[Module:ParseVauthors]] which extracts the author names from {{para|vauthors}} into a series of {{para|first''n''}} / {{para|last''n''}} parameters that it then passes with {{para|name-list-format|vanc}} and {{para|display-authors|6}} along with all of the other parameters to {{tlx|cite journal}}.

I have added support for this parameter to [[Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox]]. These examples are {{tlx|cite book/new}} but the parameter works for the other cs1|2 templates:

A simple case:

:{{cite book/new |title=Title |vauthors=First FM, Second FM |date=2015}}

Supports {{para|author-mask''n''}} and {{para|authorlink''n''}} as well as <code>CITEREF</code>:

:{{cite book/new |title=Title |vauthors=First FM, Lincoln A |date=2015 |authormask=2 |author-link2=Abraham Lincoln |ref=harv}}

allows {{para|vauthors}} to contain et al. without adding the page to {{cl|CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al.}} because the [http://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi PMID cite tool], heavily used by [[WP:MED]], did, in the past, and reportedly will again in the future, create citations that include the text:

:{{cite book/new |title=Title |vauthors=First FM, Second FM et al. |date=2015}}

<s>default display of 6 authors even though seven are listed:</s>

<s>:{{cite book/new |title=Title |vauthors=First FM, Second FM, Third FM, Fourth FM, Fifth FM, Sixth FM, Seventh FM |date=2015}}</s>

<s>to display all seven, set {{para|display-authors|7}}. {{cl|CS1 maint: display-authors}} suppressed because in this case there is legitimate need to set {{para|display-authors}} to a number equal to or greater than the number of authors:</s>

<s>:{{cite book/new |title=Title |vauthors=First FM, Second FM, Third FM, Fourth FM, Fifth FM, Sixth FM, Seventh FM |date=2015 |display-authors=7}}</s>

{{tld|citation}}, name list contains an illegal character

:{{citation/new |title=Title |vauthors=First FM; Second FM |date=2015}}

{{tld|cite journal/new}}, first name's intials not properly capitalized:

:{{cite journal/new |title=Title |journal=Journal |vauthors=First fm; Second FM |date=2015}}

As currently configured, {{para|vauthors}} has priority over {{para|last''n''}} / {{para|first''n''}} which has priority over {{para|authors}}. Is this the correct hierarchy? Still to do is error reporting when a template includes {{para|vauthors}} with any of {{para|last''n''}} / {{para|first''n''}} / {{para|authors}}.

—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if we keep this, we should extend it to support editors with {{para|veditors}}.

—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

:It makes sense to support this given that vauthors has a format which can be parsed in an expected way (and which can be error checked). I am concerned about not including all authors (to some extent). --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 14:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

::Nothing about this parameter will prevent you from including a gross of authors if that is your desire. To be compatible with {{tlx|vcite2 journal}} which itself complies with [http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html this recommendation (at 1)], {{tlx|cite journal}} should display a maximum of six authors unless otherwise directed by {{para|display-authors}}.

::Lifting that restriction for the other cs1|2 templates may be 'correct' but may also confuse editors. I think that if we define a standard 'vauthors rule' (up to six authors are displayed unless overridden by {{para|display-authors}}), we won't have so many confused editors. If there is sufficient need for a different or no default for other templates, we can address that need as it arises.

::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

:::I was commenting more about the linked [[WT:MED]] discussion regarding that second sentence. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 18:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

A slight revision of the code that handles {{para|display-authors}}:

:{{para|display-authors}}

::{{cite book/new |title=Title |vauthors=First FM, Second FM, Third FM, Fourth FM, Fifth FM, Sixth FM, Seventh FM |date=2015 |display-authors=}}

:{{para|display-authors|8}}

::{{cite book/new |title=Title |vauthors=First FM, Second FM, Third FM, Fourth FM, Fifth FM, Sixth FM, Seventh FM |date=2015 |display-authors=8}}

:{{para|display-authors|3}}

::{{cite book/new |title=Title |vauthors=First FM, Second FM, Third FM, Fourth FM, Fifth FM, Sixth FM, Seventh FM |date=2015 |display-authors=3}}

:{{para|display-authors|etal}} (four authors listed)

::{{cite book/new |title=Title |vauthors=First FM, Second FM, Third FM, Fourth FM |date=2015 |display-authors=etal}}

And to make sure I didn't break the {{para|display-authors}} handling for the {{para|author''n''}} type of author name list:

:{{para|display-authors}}

::{{cite book/new |title=Title |author1=First FM |author2=Second FM |author3=Third FM |author4=Fourth FM |author5=Fifth FM |author6=Sixth FM |author7=Seventh FM |date=2015 |display-authors=}}

:{{para|display-authors|8}}

::{{cite book/new |title=Title |author1=First FM |author2=Second FM |author3=Third FM |author4=Fourth FM |author5=Fifth FM |author6=Sixth FM |author7=Seventh FM |date=2015 |display-authors=8}}

:{{para|display-authors|3}}

::{{cite book/new |title=Title |author1=First FM |author2=Second FM |author3=Third FM |author4=Fourth FM |author5=Fifth FM |author6=Sixth FM |author7=Seventh FM |date=2015 |display-authors=3}}

:{{para|display-authors|etal}} (four authors listed)

::{{cite book/new |title=Title |author1=First FM |author2=Second FM |author3=Third FM |author4=Fourth FM |date=2015 |display-authors=etal}}

—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This is fantastic! Vancouver style authors have been and continue to be widely used in medical and scientific articles. Adding {{para|vauthors}} support to CS1 will make it much easier to maintain a consistent citation style in these articles while at the same time producing clean metadata. Thank you Trappist! [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 05:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

*So why can we implment this but not the citation styles that use small caps for authors names...[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 05:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

*:Because that doesn't have consensus per [[WP:SMALLCAPS]]? --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 05:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

::It was REMOVED without consensus! And it has consensus aslong a WP:CITEVAR is in effect.[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 23:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that setting the artificial limit to the number of authors to be displayed (6) is inconsistent with the other author-holding parameters. I think that imposing such a limit on editors will just be confusing. If editors wish to constrain the display, they should do it with {{para|vauthors}} in the same way that they would for {{para|author''n''}} and for {{para|last''n''}} / {{para|first''n''}}: use {{para|display-authors}}. So, I've removed the 6-author display constraint from the sandbox.

—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

: The default should be set to what most editors prefer. Editors that use {{para|vauthors}} presumably prefer compact Vancouver style output. Since the original ICMJE recommendation is to display only the first six authors, I suspect that many of these same editors would support following this recommendation. The whole idea {{para|vauthors}} is to reduce the number of required citation parameters. If most editors end up adding {{para|display-authors|6}}, it partially defeats the purpose of using {{para|vauthors}}. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 12:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

::You {{diff|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine|661471794|661471425|wrote}}: {{tq|The tool will return to its default (list all authors if there are five or less, and truncate to three plus et al if there are six or more).}} Since the tool will be artificially limiting the number of authors, and because the tool is apparently commonly used, shouldn't that be sufficient? The template should not impose an artificial limit on one author-name-holding parameter that it doesn't also impose on {{para|author''n''}} and {{para|last''n''}} / {{para|first''n''}} parameters. When editors desire to include more authors in the template than are to be displayed, they should use the same mechanism (insofar as is possible – it won't work on {{para|authors}}) that is used with other author-name-holding parameters. If compactness is desired, there is nothing to prevent editors from simply reducing the number of authors listed in {{para|vauthors}}.

::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

::: There is developing consensus over at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Medical_FA_maintenance|WT:MED]] (and also supported by Izno above) that all authors should be included in the author list. As I subsequently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Medicine&type=revision&diff=661688074&oldid=661672319 wrote], the tool's default has been changed to include all authors and will only truncate the author list if the "Use et al. for author list" option is selected. The "et al." option is retained for FA MED articles and for citations with "hyperauthorship". [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 16:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

::::Apparently, there is some support at WT:MED ({{diff|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine|661482897|661477103|here}} and {{diff|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine|661486594|661485503|here}}) for listing all and truncating the list with {{para|display-authors}}. If a consensus develops outside of WP:MED to artificially limit the displayed length of a Vancouver-style author-name list, then we should consider doing that but I think that it isn't quite right to allow WP:MED to define this parameter's functionality based on WP:MED's unique preferences when such preferences may not match those of other projects or other editors.

::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 17:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

::::: By far, the widest use of the [http://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi citation filling tool] and {{tl|vcite2 journal}} has been within the [[WP:MED]] and [[WP:MCB]] projects and the participants within these two projects largely overlap. Hence the consensus at [[WP:MED]] is significant and carries at least as much weight as this talk page. Finally {{tl|vcite2 journal}} has been transcluded into ~2600 pages and has included {{para|display-authors|6}} from the beginning. Not one editor has objected to this setting. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 17:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::I do not doubt that. But, {{tlx|vcite2 journal}} is not {{tlx|cite journal}}, {{tlx|cite book}}, {{tlx|cite web}} nor any of the other 20-some cs1|2 templates. For editors who use those templates, there are no artificial limits such as those that WP:MED have imposed upon themselves. I suspect that a requirement to add {{para|display-authors|''n''}} to show more than 6 authors is going to be confusing because editors don't need to do that with {{para|author}} or {{para|authors}}.

::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

===Corporate authors and |vauthors= ===

What to do about corporate authors? This cite throws two errors because '16' is not in the set of letters allowed by the Vancouver name test and because the 'first name', 'Consortium' is not one or two uppercase letters. A quick search of the [[Vancouver system]] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7282/ documentation] for the terms 'corporate' and 'institutional' was unproductive. The corporate author in this citation renders correctly:

:{{cite journal/new | vauthors = European Chromosome 16 Tuberous Sclerosis Consortium | title = Identification and characterization of the tuberous sclerosis gene on chromosome 16 | journal = Cell | volume = 75 | issue = 7 | pages = 1305-15 | year = 1993 | pmid = 8269512 | doi = 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90618-Z}}

but, the metadata are flawed:

:<code>&rft.au=European+Chromosome+16+Tuberous+Sclerosis%2C+Consortium&rft.aufirst=Consortium&rft.aulast=European+Chromosome+16+Tuberous+Sclerosis</code>

This is because there isn't a mechanism in place to identify this author as a corporate author.

There are citations in article space that list both individual and corporate authors using the existing author-holding parameters. If a corporate or institutional author is listed separately in {{para|author''n''}} or {{para|last''n''}}, the citation renders correctly and the metadata are not corrupted. {{para|authors}} almost always produces corrupt metadata. It should be expected that editors will create citations that will include both individual and corporate authors in {{para|vauthors}}.

One possible solution might be to require that corporate authors be 'wrapped' in some sort of simple markup:

:{{para|vauthors|[European Chromosome 16 Tuberous Sclerosis Consortium], First FM, Second FM}}

The wrapping bypasses the usual Vancouver name test so any character is allowed within the brackets. This should not be used to defeat the test for individual author-names.

Using this scheme, this citation:

:{{cite journal/new | vauthors = [European Chromosome 16 Tuberous Sclerosis Consortium], First FM, Second FM | title = Identification and characterization of the tuberous sclerosis gene on chromosome 16 | journal = Cell | volume = 75 | issue = 7 | pages = 1305-15 | year = 1993 | pmid = 8269512 | doi = 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90618-Z}}

produces this correct metadata:

:<code>&rft.au=European+Chromosome+16+Tuberous+Sclerosis+Consortium&rft.au=First%2C+FM&rft.aulast=European+Chromosome+16+Tuberous+Sclerosis+Consortium&rft.au=Second%2C+FM</code>

I have added code to trap the expected case when editors write <code><nowiki>[[</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>]]</nowiki></code>.

:{{cite journal/new | vauthors = [[European Chromosome 16 Tuberous Sclerosis Consortium]], First FM, Second FM | title = Identification and characterization of the tuberous sclerosis gene on chromosome 16 | journal = Cell | volume = 75 | issue = 7 | pages = 1305-15 | year = 1993 | pmid = 8269512 | doi = 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90618-Z}}

An opening <code><nowiki>[[</nowiki></code> without a closing <code><nowiki>]]</nowiki></code> does not produce an error because WikiMedia never finds the ending <code><nowiki>]]</nowiki></code> so the template's <code><nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> is never found.

While this example uses square brackets, perhaps a better markup would be doubled parentheses in this fashion:

:{{para|vauthors|((European Chromosome 16 Tuberous Sclerosis Consortium)), First FM, Second FM}}

Doubling the parentheses is closely akin to other doubled markup used in Wikitext but it is not used anywhere else that I know of. Parentheses are not allowed by the Vancouver name test so their presence won't be confused as a proper part of a name.

Opinions? Is there a better way to detect or define corporate or institutional authors?

—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

: I don't have a strong feeling about this. The [http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html ICMJE recommendations] suggest that individual and organization authors be separated by a semicolon. This recommendation is followed by PubMed (see for example {{PMID3|12771764}}). However I don't think we should follow this particular recommendation as it would make error checking less robust (one of the most common vauthors errors is likely to be the use of standard CS1 rendered author format).

: Another possibility is to use {{para|vauthors}} for the individual authors and {{para|authorn}} for the organization author. For example:

:* <nowiki>{{vcite2 journal | vauthors = Vallancien G, Emberton M, Harving N, van Moorselaar RJ | author5 = Alf-One Study Group | title = Sexual dysfunction in 1,274 European men suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms | journal = J. Urol. | volume = 169 | issue = 6 | pages = 2257–61 | year = 2003 | pmid = 12771764 | doi = 10.1097/01.ju.0000067940.76090.73 }}</nowiki> renders as:

:* {{vcite2 journal | vauthors = Vallancien G, Emberton M, Harving N, van Moorselaar RJ | author5 = Alf-One Study Group | title = Sexual dysfunction in 1,274 European men suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms | journal = J. Urol. | volume = 169 | issue = 6 | pages = 2257–61 | year = 2003 | pmid = 12771764 | doi = 10.1097/01.ju.0000067940.76090.73 }}

: This does not currently work with {{tl|cite journal/new}} however. Please note that citations with organization authors are not very common. Furthermore I don't object to using extra parameters to cover special cases that occur infrequently. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 16:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

: Also if there is a single author and that author is an organization, it would be much more practical to use {{para|author1}} instead of {{para|vauthors}}. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 17:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

::I agree that for a single corporate author, {{para|author}} should be preferred. I suspect that editors will use {{para|vauthors}} for single author names whether they are human or corporate.

::The mix of {{para|vauthors}} and {{para|author''n''}} intentionally doesn't work in [[Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox]]. The Module currently disallows the combination of {{para|authors}} with {{para|author''n''}} (and its alias {{para|last''n''}} with {{para|first''n''}}) because the former is not formatted by the template and the latter is and because {{para|authors}} is not an alias of {{para|author''n''}}. Similarly, {{para|author''n''}} is not an alias of {{para|vauthors}} so mixed use would blur the line between those two styles. This is why I suggested that corporate authors should be included in {{para|vauthors}} with appropriate markup to render the visual presentation and the metadata properly.

::I agree that corporate authors and individual authors should not be separated by semicolons.

::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 17:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

:::I have changed the corporate or institutional mark up from single square brackets to doubled parentheses because single square brackets have meaning as external link markup:

::::<code><nowiki>{{cite journal/new | vauthors = Vallancien G, Emberton M, Harving N, van Moorselaar RJ, ((Alf-One Study Group)) | title = Sexual dysfunction in 1,274 European men suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms | journal = J. Urol. | volume = 169 | issue = 6 | pages = 2257–61 | year = 2003 | pmid = 12771764 | doi = 10.1097/01.ju.0000067940.76090.73 }}</nowiki></code> renders as:

:::::{{cite journal/new | vauthors = Vallancien G, Emberton M, Harving N, van Moorselaar RJ, ((Alf-One Study Group)) | title = Sexual dysfunction in 1,274 European men suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms | journal = J. Urol. | volume = 169 | issue = 6 | pages = 2257–61 | year = 2003 | pmid = 12771764 | doi = 10.1097/01.ju.0000067940.76090.73 }}

:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

=== |vauthors= and |author''n''= and |authors= ===

Because there are now three possible sources for authors, I think that we should choose one of the three and emit an error message when more than one of these sources is present in the template. The hierarchy in the sandbox is: {{para|author''n''}} (includes {{para|last''n''}}, an alias and {{para|first''n''}} → {{para|vauthors}} → {{para|authors}}. The current live version of the module emits an error message when {{para|authors}} and {{para|author''n''}} are both detected.

{{para|author1}}:

:{{cite book/new |title=Title |author1=First LF, Second LF, Third LF |date=2015}}

{{para|vauthors}}:

:{{cite book/new |title=Title |vauthors=First VF, Second VF, Third VF |date=2015}}

{{para|authors}}:

:{{cite book/new |title=Title |authors=First AF, Second AF, Third AF |date=2015}}

{{para|vauthors}} and {{para|author1}}:

*{{cite book/new |title=Title |vauthors=First VF, Second VF, Third VF|author1=Fourth LF |author2=Fifth LF |author3=Sixth LF |author4=Seventh LF |date=2015}}

{{para|vauthors}} and {{para|authors}}:

*{{cite book/new |title=Title |vauthors=First VF, Second VF, Third VF|authors=Fourth AF, Fifth AF, Sixth AF, Seventh AF|date=2015}}

{{para|author1}} and {{para|authors}}:

*{{cite book/new |title=Title |author1=First LF, Second LF, Third LF |authors=Fourth AF, Fifth AF, Sixth AF, Seventh AF|date=2015}}

{{para|vauthors}}, {{para|author1}}, and {{para|authors}}:

*{{cite book/new |title=Title |author1=First LF, Second LF, Third LF |authors=Fourth AF, Fifth AF, Sixth AF, Seventh AF |vauthors=First VF, Second VF, Third VF |date=2015}}

There is a limit to this. When {{para|vauthors}} or {{para|authors}} are used with {{para|author''n''}}, ''n'' must be 1 or 2 to be detected. This is because ''n'' could conceivably be any number greater than 0 and there are 6 aliases of {{para|author''n''}}. The test is similar to the test that is used to detect missing {{para|last''n''}} which uses a 'hole' size of 2 to decide that the test is done.

—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 23:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

===|veditors= ===

A first hack at {{para|veditors}}. I cloned the code that does the author selection to do editor selection from {{para|editor''n''}} (and its aliases), {{para|editors}}, and {{para|veditors}}. Except for names, the code is identical to that used for authors so I need to figure out how to combine the two into a single function. The code that interprets {{para|vauthors}} and {{para|veditors}} and then creates the name list that is later rendered as an author list or an editor list is the same. These example show that the sandbox code is capable of properly rendering a {{para|veditors}} name list.

{{para|editor1}}:

:{{cite book/new |title=Title |editor1=First LF, Second LF, Third LF |date=2015}}

{{para|veditors}}:

:{{cite book/new |title=Title |veditors=First VF, Second VF, Third VF |date=2015}}

{{para|editors}}:

:{{cite book/new |title=Title |editors=First AF, Second AF, Third AF |date=2015}}

{{para|veditors}} and {{para|editor1}}:

*{{cite book/new |title=Title |veditors=First VF, Second VF, Third VF|editor1=Fourth LF |editor2=Fifth LF |editor3=Sixth LF |editor4=Seventh LF |date=2015}}

{{para|veditors}} and {{para|editors}}:

*{{cite book/new |title=Title |veditors=First VF, Second VF, Third VF|editors=Fourth AF, Fifth AF, Sixth AF, Seventh AF|date=2015}}

{{para|editor1}} and {{para|editors}}:

*{{cite book/new |title=Title |editor1=First LF, Second LF, Third LF |editors=Fourth AF, Fifth AF, Sixth AF, Seventh AF|date=2015}}

{{para|veditors}}, {{para|editor1}}, and {{para|editors}}:

*{{cite book/new |title=Title |editor1=First LF, Second LF, Third LF |editors=Fourth AF, Fifth AF, Sixth AF, Seventh AF |veditors=First VF, Second VF, Third VF |date=2015}}

—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 19:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

== Citing youtube and online video sites ==

Apologies if this question has been asked a gazillion times already. What is the preferred cite AV media parameters for citing a youtube or other online video: 1) from the direct site itself, and 2) from a wrapper site / news article that embeds the video? Should I use work=YouTube, medium=YouTube, or via=YouTube? [[User:AngusWOOF|<strong><font color="606060">AngusWOOF</font></strong>]] ([[User talk:AngusWOOF#top|<font color="663300">bark</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/AngusWOOF|<font color="006600">sniff</font>]]) 18:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

:It probably hasn't, but I'll throw a suggested answer out:

:# If you are citing content in the video itself, I would recommend clicking through to the origin website (youtube.com in your example) and using that URL. This is cite AV media.

:# If you are citing content outside the video, the URL you are on at that time. In this case I don't see a need to mention YouTube or a video or media at all in the context of the citation so I would use cite web/cite news.

:# If for some reason you need both (I can't think of one), then provide two citations.

: work = YouTube is fine. medium as a parameter does not exist in the documentation (using ctrl + F). via would be appropriate in the 3rd case. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 19:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

== titlelink oddity in cite encyclopedia ==

According to the cite encyclopedia documentation, {{para|title-link}} is "Title of existing Wikipedia article about the source named in '''title'''" – yet it actually links the text in {{para|encyclopedia}}, not {{para|title}}:

{{cite compare |mode=encyclopedia |old=no

|title=Gopher|titlelink=s:The American Cyclopædia (1879)/Gopher|encyclopedia=The American Cyclopædia (1879)|year=1879|via=[[Wikisource]]}}

{{para|url}} works as expected, but full urls shouldn't be necessary when wikilinks are available

{{cite compare |mode=encyclopedia |old=no

|title=Gopher|url=https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_American_Cyclop%C3%A6dia_(1879)/Gopher|encyclopedia=The American Cyclopædia (1879)|year=1879|via=[[Wikisource]]}}

Can this be fixed? Thanks - <u>'''[[User:Evad37|Evad]]''37'''''</u>&nbsp;<span style="font-size:95%;">&#91;[[d:w:User talk:Evad37|talk]]]</span> 00:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

:It is perhaps fixed in the sandbox. I have no more time to think about it for a couple of days.

:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 00:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

== access-date usage definition ==

I notice that on many cite template related pages that the given usage for {{para|access-date}} varies. I believe that "full date when the contents pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article" (as given in the [[:Template:Cite book|cite book]] documentation) best captures what is intended for {{para|access-date}}. Yet many places (like on [[Help:Citation Style 1]] itself or places like [[:Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL]] give differing definitions, mostly because the authors who wrote them probably weren't trying to be as precise as they should have been. I intend to start tweaking the usage definition for accessdate whenever I see it saying something too unlike that of Template:Cite book. If you can think of CS1 examples where {{para|access-date}} really should not use "full date when the contents pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article", let me know. [[User:Jason Quinn|Jason Quinn]] ([[User talk:Jason Quinn|talk]]) 11:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

:I have copy-edited the {{para|access-date}} documentation just now. I fixed some grammar and changed the word "required", since "required" has a specific meaning for template parameters, and {{para|access-date}} does not meet that definition.

:All of the CS1 core templates that display the {{para|access-date}} help text in their documentation should be using the exact same text to describe the parameter, since they (should) transclude [[Template:Citation_Style_documentation/url]].

:I support your changing of [[Help:Citation Style 1]]. The category page linked above I'm not as sure about. It has a pretty good explanation that has been developed over time to be helpful. Feel free to be bold and change it, but don't be offended if one of us swoops in after you with changes to your changes. Thanks. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 13:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

==enumerated parameters==

I started doing the searches identified in the following tables so that I might have some idea of how to better order the search for enumerated author and editor names. But, the search also shows general editor preferences for certain parameter styles and for certain parameter names.

{| class="wikitable sortable"

|+{{pipe}}first= aliases

!class="unsortable" |parameter!!class="unsortable" |search string!!count

|-

|{{para|author-first''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *author\-first[0-9]* *=/</code>||227

|-

|{{para|author''n''-first}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *author[0-9]+\-first *=/</code>||96

|-

|{{para|first''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *first[0-9]* *=/</code>||51,274

|-

|{{para|given''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *given[0-9]* *=/</code>||473

|-

|}

{| class="wikitable sortable"

|+{{pipe}}last= aliases

!class="unsortable" |parameter!!class="unsortable" |search string!!count

|-

|{{para|author-last''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *author\-last[0-9]* *=/</code>||236

|-

|{{para|author''n''-last}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *author[0-9]+\-last *=/</code>||94

|-

|{{para|last''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *last[0-9]* *=/</code>||43,262

|-

|{{para|surname''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *surname[0-9]* *=/</code>||800

|-

|{{para|author''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *author[0-9]* *=/</code>||42,398

|-

|{{para|subject''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *subject[0-9]* *=/</code>||<s>14,880</s>{{dagger}}

|-

|}

{{dagger}} used by {{tlx|cite interview}} but also used by {{tlx|infobox book}}, {{tlx|In-universe}}, {{tlx|databank}} so this number is essentially meaningless

{| class="wikitable sortable"

|+{{pipe}}author-link= aliases

!class="unsortable" |parameter!!class="unsortable" |search string!!count

|-

|{{para|author-link''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *author\-link[0-9]* *=/</code>||19,139

|-

|{{para|author''n''-link}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *author[0-9]+\-link *=/</code>||10,044

|-

|{{para|authorlink''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *authorlink[0-9]* *=/</code>||53,345

|-

|{{para|author''n''link}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *author[0-9]+link *=/</code>||50

|-

|{{para|subject-link''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *subject\-link[0-9]* *=/</code>||47

|-

|{{para|subject''n''-link}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *subject[0-9]+\-link *=/</code>||1

|-

|{{para|subjectlink''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *subjectlink[0-9]* *=/</code>||679

|-

|{{para|subject''n''link}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *subject[0-9]+link *=/</code>||0

|-

|}

{| class="wikitable sortable"

|+{{pipe}}author-mask= aliases

!class="unsortable" |parameter!!class="unsortable" |search string!!count

|-

|{{para|author-mask''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *author\-mask[0-9]* *=/</code>||710

|-

|{{para|author''n''-mask}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *author[0-9]+\-mask *=/</code>||7

|-

|{{para|authormask''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *authormask[0-9]* *=/</code>||511

|-

|{{para|author''n''mask}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *author[0-9]+mask *=/</code>||22

|-

|}

{| class="wikitable sortable"

|+{{pipe}}editor-first= aliases

!class="unsortable" |parameter!!class="unsortable" |search string!!count

|-

|{{para|editor-first''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editor\-first[0-9]* *=/</code>||32,889

|-

|{{para|editor''n''-first}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editor[0-9]+\-first *=/</code>||23,224

|-

|{{para|editor-given''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editor\-given[0-9]* *=/</code>||0

|-

|{{para|editor''n''-given}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editor[0-9]+\-given *=/</code>||0

|-

|}

{| class="wikitable sortable"

|+{{pipe}}editor-last= aliases

!class="unsortable" |parameter!!class="unsortable" |search string!!count

|-

|{{para|editor''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editor[0-9]* *=/</code>||33,883

|-

|{{para|editor-last''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editor\-last[0-9]* *=/</code>||33,442

|-

|{{para|editor''n''-last}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editor[0-9]+\-last *=/</code>||21,130

|-

|{{para|editor-surname''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editor\-surname[0-9]* *=/</code>||0

|-

|{{para|editor''n''-surname }}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editor[0-9]+\-surname *=/</code>||0

|-

|}

{| class="wikitable sortable"

|+{{pipe}}editor-link= aliases

!class="unsortable" |parameter!!class="unsortable" |search string!!count

|-

|{{para|editor-link''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editor\-link[0-9]* *=/</code>||7,988

|-

|{{para|editor''n''-link}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editor[0-9]+\-link *=/</code>||5,183

|-

|{{para|editorlink''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editorlink[0-9]* *=/</code>||297

|-

|{{para|editor''n''link}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editor[0-9]+link *=/</code>||41

|-

|}

{| class="wikitable sortable"

|+{{pipe}}editor-mask= aliases

!class="unsortable" |parameter!!class="unsortable" |search string!!count

|-

|{{para|editor-mask''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editor\-mask[0-9]* *=/</code>||19

|-

|{{para|editor''n''-mask}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editor[0-9]+\-mask *=/</code>||6

|-

|{{para|editormask''n''}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editormask[0-9]* *=/</code>||16

|-

|{{para|editor''n''mask}}||<code>insource:/\{{pipe}} *editor[0-9]+mask *=/</code>||1

|-

|}

I have never really liked parameters where the enumerator is in the middle of the parameter name: {{para|author''n''-first}} and {{para|editor''n''link}} for example, regardless of hyphenation. For many of the same reasons that we settled on hyphenated parameter names and have deprecated capitalized and camel-case parameter names, I think that we should settle on one standard form of enumerated parameter name. From the tables above, common usage would seem to suggest that editors generally prefer parameter names with the enumerator at the end of the name. Except when it comes to enumerated editor parameters. While enumerator-at-the-end is still preferred, enumerator-in-the-middle runs a close second.

These tables also show that some of the available enumerated parameter are rarely if ever used. Perhaps we should consider deprecating:

:{{para|subject''n''link}}

:{{para|subject''n''-link}}

:{{para|editor-given''n''}}

:{{para|editor''n''-given}}

:{{para|editor-surname''n''}}

:{{para|editor''n''-surname}}

Opinions?

—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

:As frequent readers here know, I am often in favor of change, but I think this change is not necessary. It's cleaner, for sure, but it's actually less consistent across the parameters. If we do it, I expect that someone will come along at some point and say "We have parameter X, but we don't have the obvious parallel parameter Y." And then it's a big discussion. I don't know.... – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 13:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

::There are really two items for consideration here: standardized enumeration and deprecating some rarely/never used parameters. Which of these are you saying will be {{tq|less consistent across the parameters}}?

::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 13:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

:::Having {{para|editorn-link}} but not {{para|subjectn-link}} makes the parameters less standard. I would rather have both or remove both than just have one of them. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

::::I think that you are only focusing on the proposal to deprecate the short list of parameters and ignoring the proposal to standardize enumerated parameters. Were we to not standardize, then perhaps you are right.

::::If I had my way, the standard for enumerated parameters would be enumerator-at-the-end so both {{para|editor''n''-link}} and {{para|subject''n''-link}} would be deprecated (even were we to not deprecate the latter because of disuse). We would still have as active and supported parameters: {{para|editor-link''n''}} and {{para|subject-link''n''}}. Parameters in the form {{para|xxxx''n''yyyy}} or {{para|xxxx''n''-yyyy}} would be deprecated and ultimately replaced with the extant {{para|xxxx-yyyy''n''}} form. I don't see much point in keeping both forms which I think is supported by the data in the tables above.

::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 15:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::Now I see what you're saying, I think. I support standardizing on {{para|parameter-name''n''}} as the canonical form of two-word-plus-number parameters in our documentation (I haven't checked to see what the docs currently say). I don't see the point of deprecating the {{para|parameter''n''-name}} form on what appear to be aesthetic grounds. I won't die on that hill, though; if others feel strongly, go for it, but please do show up on this page to respond when people complain that we are constantly changing things for no good reason. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 23:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

::::::How is deprecating enumerator-in-the-middle parameters different from deprecating [[Help talk:Citation Style 1#.7CEditor.3D .28capital .22E.22.29 not flagged in .7B.7BCite_book.7D.7D.3F|capitalized parameters]]?

::::::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

:I would argue for keeping {{para|given''n''}} and {{para|surname''n''}} (and their editor versions), and adding them to the documentation. Having recently edited a lot of citations with East Asian authors, I find it confusing to have to put an author's first name into {{para|last}} and their last name into {{para|first}}, and I have seen editors erroneously "correcting" them. [[User talk:Kanguole|Kanguole]] 16:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

::I have said nothing about deprecating {{para|given''n''}} and {{para|surname''n''}}. Certainly, if I had my way we would deprecate {{para|editor''n''-given}} and {{para|editor''n''-surname}} because of enumerator-in-the-middle syndrome and because of disuse. Because of disuse, I'm inclined to deprecation of {{para|editor-given''n''}} and {{para|editor-surname''n''}} but could be persuaded to keep them, at least for a time.

::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 16:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

:::I would argue to keep {{para|editor-given''n''}} and {{para|editor-surname''n''}} for the same reasons as above: they provide an alternative that is less confusing and error-prone. [[User talk:Kanguole|Kanguole]] 12:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

== Get first1 and last1 parameters to work in Wikiversity too ==

The corresponding template in Wikiversity ([[Wikiversity:Template:Cite journal]]) does not support the parameters ''first1'', ''last1'', ''first2'' etc. How can this functionality be copied from this template to that one? [[User:Mikael Häggström|Mikael Häggström]] ([[User talk:Mikael Häggström|talk]]) 18:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

:Since Wikiversity already has [[Wikiversity:Template:Citation/core]], it might be simplest to copy {{tlx|cite journal/old}} from en:WP to [[Wikiversity:Template:Cite journal/sandbox]] to prove that it works (because the Wikiversity version of {{tld|citation/core}} is somewhat older) and then, assuming that it does work, update the live {{tld|cite journal}} from the sandbox. That will give you up to 9 author names.

:Wikiversity also has very old version [[Wikiversity:Module:Citation/CS1]] so using that instead of {{tld|citation/core}} is another alternative. A rather bigger job would be to upgrade the module to use the current version of [[Module:Citation/CS1]] from en:WP.

:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 18:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

::It does work now, after copying {{tlx|cite journal/old}} from en:WP to {{tld|cite journal}}, thanks! It would be even better, however, if the author presentation had Wikipedia's style (''First L'' instead of ''First, L;''). Would that be achieved by performing any of the latter methods you described? [[User:Mikael Häggström|Mikael Häggström]] ([[User talk:Mikael Häggström|talk]]) 05:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

:::Standard Wikipedia style is to put a comma between an author's last and first names and to separate consecutive authors with a semicolon. cs1|2 does not render author names in italics (nor does it render first name followed by last initial):

::::<code><nowiki>{{cite book/old |title=Title |last=Last |first=F |last2=Last2 |first2=F}}</nowiki></code>

:::::{{cite book/old |title=Title |last=Last |first=F |last2=Last2 |first2=F}}

:::If you are looking to mimic [[Vancouver system]] style you can do this:

::::<code><nowiki>{{cite book |author-separator=, |author-name-separator=&amp;#32; |title=Title |last=Last |first=F |last2=Last2 |first2=F}}</nowiki></code>

:::::{{cite book/old |author-separator=, |author-name-separator=&#32; |title=Title |last=Last |first=F |last2=Last2 |first2=F}}

:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 11:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

::::Thanks again! {{=)}} [[User:Mikael Häggström|Mikael Häggström]] ([[User talk:Mikael Häggström|talk]]) 04:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

== Can parameters be passed to a nested cite web? ==

I'm trying to modify the [[Template:Airreg|Airreg]] template so that it produces in-line citations instead of external links, but when I try to nest a <nowiki>{{cite web}}</nowiki> into it, the parameters taken by Airreg and passed to <nowiki>{{cite web}}</nowiki> don't seem to get processed by it, and the output is just <nowiki>{{{1}}}, {{{2}}} etc.</nowiki>.

Instead, the same parameters passed, for example, to a nested <nowiki>{{conversion}}</nowiki> are processed normally, as expected. Is there something peculiar about <nowiki>{{cite web}}</nowiki> that, when nested, prevents it from accepting parameters?

See an example from my sandbox template, which takes one parameter, e.g. 'N4739N', outputs it as it is and then passes it to cite web, which seems to ignore it. This:

<code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[User:Deeday-UK/sandbox|User:Deeday-UK/sandbox]]|N4739N<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>

produces this:

Aircraft registration: N4739N<ref>{{cite web|title=FAA Registry entry for {{{1}}}|url=http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt={{{1}}}}}</ref>

--[[User:Deeday-UK|Deeday-UK]] ([[User talk:Deeday-UK|talk]]) 00:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

:There are a several templates that feed various parameters to {{tlx|cite web}} or other cs1|2 templates (see {{cl|Citation Style 1 meta-templates}} or {{cl|Citation Style 1 specific-source templates}}) so that shouldn't be a problem. Have you tried your test without the {{tag|ref}} tags?

:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 01:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

:: Good hint TtM, yes, without the {{tag|ref}} tags the parameters are processed as expected. Only trouble is that without the ref tags, it doesn't produce a superscript reference to a footnote, and instead it outputs the footnote text directly into the article body, right where the {{tlx|cite web}} template is. Is there any way around it? --[[User:Deeday-UK|Deeday-UK]] ([[User talk:Deeday-UK|talk]]) 01:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

:::Try wrapping {{tlx|cite web}} in <code><nowiki>{{#tag:ref|{{cite web |...}}}}</nowiki></code>.

:::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 01:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

::::Major thanks, Trappist tm; that worked. --[[User:Deeday-UK|Deeday-UK]] ([[User talk:Deeday-UK|talk]]) 17:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

== Proposal to put a comma before "et al." ==

There is a proposal to put a comma before "et al." in author and editor lists. See [[Module_talk:Citation/CS1#Et_al_2|this discussion]]. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 03:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

== Link to an author page, without breaking "first1, last1 separate" convention? ==

Is there a way to have an author name linked to a page about that person, yet still retain the use of the separated "first1" and "last1" parameters (useful for bots searching wikipedia I suppose)? On the page [[Unknot]], there's a reference to a paper by [[Godfried Toussaint]]. I had wanted to put this (with separate names):

:'''<nowiki>

{{cite journal |author = [[Godfried Toussaint]] |last1 = Toussaint |first1 = Godfried Toussaint |title = A new class of stuck unknots in Pol-6 | [...] }}

</nowiki>'''

but had to settle for the slightly less-informative:

:'''<nowiki>

{{cite journal |author = [[Godfried Toussaint]] |title = A new class [...] }}

</nowiki>'''

to avoid getting a "double author" error. Is there some other way to do this? Perhaps an additional "author-link" parameter? (But then you could have problems with multiple authors, so you'd need "author-link", "author-link1") [[User:Jimw338|Jimw338]] ([[User talk:Jimw338|talk]]) 16:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

:{{para|first|Godfried}}{{para|last|Toussaint}}{{para|author-link|Godfried Toussaint}} [[User talk:Kanguole|Kanguole]] 16:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

::Yes, as the documentation already states and Kanguole cryptically implies, the authorlink, author1-link, etc parameters you are asking for are already in place. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 16:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

:::The documentation should help you. If not, here's an example with two linked authors:

::::<nowiki>{{cite journal |author-link1 = Godfried Toussaint |last1 = Toussaint |first1 = Godfried |last2=Newton|first2=Isaac|author-link2=Isaac Newton |title = A new class of stuck unknots in Pol-6 }}</nowiki>

:::yields:

::::{{cite journal |author-link1 = Godfried Toussaint |last1 = Toussaint |first1 = Godfried |last2=Newton|first2=Isaac|author-link2=Isaac Newton |title = A new class of stuck unknots in Pol-6 }}

:::Is that what you were looking for? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 20:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)